Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry is further distancing himself from comments he made last month that human life begins at conception.

In an interview with the Associated Press on Friday, Kerry reiterated his support for the so-called right to abortion, but seemingly changed his position on the beginning of life.

Asked whether he thought abortion constituted the taking of human life, Kerry said that an unborn child is a "form of life.''

"The Bible itself - I mean, everything talks about different layers of development," Kerry said. "That's what Roe v Wade does. It talks about viability. It's the law of the land.''

Kerry's comments drew guffaws from pro-life advocates.

"John Kerry's statement that a fetus is potential life is scientific nonsense," Nikolas Nikas, an attorney with Americans United for Life, told LifeNews.com. "A fetus is a human being at the fetal stage of life. It is not potential life, but human life with potential. Check any medical textbook."

Nikas also took issue with Kerry's view of the Supreme Court's decision legalizing abortion.

"[H]is view that, since abortion on demand is mandated by the Supreme Court, it cannot be challenged flies in the face of American history," Nikas explained. "The Supreme Court once held that slaves were property. Should we accept that African Americans are property because the Court once held that?"

In his Friday interview, Kerry, once again, said he could not put his Catholic views on abortion into policy.

"I don't believe personally that it's the government's job to step in and take my article of faith and transfer it to somebody who doesn't share that article of faith,'' said Kerry.

While campaigning in a heavily Catholic part of Iowa in early July, Kerry told the Dubuque Telegraph Herald, "I oppose abortion, personally. I don't like abortion. I believe life does begin at conception."

Kerry also backed away from those comments in an interview with ABC news anchor Peter Jennings late last month.

Kerry said he thought the "fertilization process" is when a human being "is first formed and created." However, Kerry added, "[w]ithin weeks, you look and see the development of it, but that's not a person yet, and it's certainly not what somebody, in my judgment, ought to have the government of the United States intervening in."

The contradictory statements, designed to keep his pro-abortion supporters and mollify voters who back him on other issues but have qualms with his abortion position, reveal Kerry's nature as a flip-flopper, pro-life advocates say.

"Senator Kerry now claims that he believes that 'a human being is first formed and created' at fertilization, but for 20 years he has consistently voted against any legal protection for those human beings," says Douglas Johnson, legislative director for the National Right to Life Committee.

"When it comes to abortion, John Kerry's views are on the wrong side of science, the wrong side of history, and the wrong side of morality," Nikas concluded.

The guy in the article effectively shoots down this garbage reasoning, but this will be a common refrain from the left once again in the near future on another hot-button, contentious social issue.

That issue is of course gay marriage. The similarities are striking. First -- as with abortion -- Kerry claims to be personally against gay marriage (but for civil unions), but that he can't let his personal views influence policy; which translates into the belief being meaningless. Though to be fair, on gay marriages he claims to be in favor of leaving it to the states.

But of course that's a farce, a deception, because he knows full well that it is just a matter of time before the Supreme Court imposes gay marriage on the entire country. The current court would probably do it, but certainly one with a couple of Kerry nominees would.

Then, as with abortion, Kerry would view the dictates of the Sup Court as the word of God. He (and the left in general) would say 'the courts have spoken, its now the law of the land, time to move on.' Suddenly his alleged federalist respect for states rights would disappear. And this is of course the plan. Does anyone seriously doubt that Kerry/Edwards don't know that the type of judges they would appoint would most certainly impose gay marriage?

You know, if one of the debate questions addressed this, and went something like; "Sen Kerry, you say that you believe that the issue of marriage should be left to the states, so does that mean that you would make sure that your judicial nominees share that opinion just as you have pledged to make sure they share your support of abortion rights, and does that mean that if the federal courts do strike down marriage laws across the nation that you would then support some sort of Amendment to at least overturn the courts and return the power on this specific issue to the states?"

I think I'd die of shock if that question were asked.

But anyway, its always the same with the left. They know they can't win a fair, legislative or democratic fight to implement their far-left social values so they turn to the courts to do their dirty work for them.

If Bush does win reelection, then he could go a long ways in redeeming himself for failures with regards to spending and immigration if he makes good Sup Court nominations and then sticks with them and demands they get an up or down vote from the full Senate, and if it fails to turn around and nominate another judges just as conservative until he gets the full vote any President deserves for his nominees. Hopefully he and his people won't make the same monumental, legacy-tainting mistake that his father did with David Souter. I'm still wondering how that happened. Did they just F*** up or did that guy do a 180 once on the court?

"I don't believe personally that it's the government's job to step in and take my article of faith and transfer it to somebody who doesn't share that article of faith,'' said Kerry.

Then why does he think it's okay for the government to step in and make it illegal for someone to commit ____ (insert illegal act here)? If commiting ____ (insert illegal act here) is not against my "articles of faith", who is he to transfer his articles upon me?

**Kerry said he thought the "fertilization process" is when a human being "is first formed and created." However, Kerry added, "[w]ithin weeks, you look and see the development of it, but that's not a person yet, and it's certainly not what somebody, in my judgment, ought to have the government of the United States intervening in."**

"It's certainly not what somebody, in my judgment, ought to have the government of the United States intervening in." The intellectual and erudite Mr. Kerry doesn't sound quite so bright. Everyone knows that: "A sentence is something you shouldn't end a preposition with."

i think this difference life vs. personhood is about the most honest "pro-choice" point of view, Kerry is correct to some extent - there was/is ?? a Christian Doctine of "Ensoulment" see http://www.sspx.org/against_the_sound_bites/life_ensoulment_of_matter.htm and Islamic law says "The Oxford Dictionary of Islam ... Ensoulment of the fetus is understood to occur 120 days after conception; after ensoulment, abortion constitutes homicide and...". So Kerry does have some philosophical grounds to stand on in being "pro-choice". None in relation to partial birth abortion though or is absolutist pro-abortion voting record

"The Bible itself - I mean, everything talks about different layers of development"

Selections from the King John Kerry Bible:

GENESIS 2:42a: P3 revC "And then the Lord consulted the Garden of Eden branch of the ACLU, and upon their approval, declared Adam to be viable."

GENESIS 4:62 subsection 3, revB: "And Cain said to God: 'You can't lay this mark upon me, for I shall be discriminated against. After all, I only performed a very late term abortion on my brother Abel which my Mother intended to do while he was in-utero but there were no Heaven-financed abortion clinics available in the Garden"

30
posted on 08/03/2004 8:12:12 PM PDT
by montag813
("A nation can survive fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within.")

In his Friday interview, Kerry, once again, said he could not put his Catholic views on abortion into policy.

"I don't believe personally that it's the government's job to step in and take my article of faith and transfer it to somebody who doesn't share that article of faith,'' said Kerry.

Note to Frenchy: 1. You can't serve two masters. 2. Some people find it morally okay to murder people(people by a legal definition), so based on your logic should we empty out all of the prisons because to do otherwise would be forcing our Catholic views on society?

Grrrr.

33
posted on 08/03/2004 8:39:57 PM PDT
by Jaded
((Clothes make the man. Naked people have little or no influence on society. - Mark Twain))

This is the craziest , most confused man on the political scene right now!!This doesn't even make a lick of sense.!!!!!!! 27 posted on 08/03/2004 8:04:10 PM PDT by pollywog

You got that one right. I just heard that liberal has-been Bill Maher say (on Hardball with Chris Matthews) that he "loves" Mrs. Heinz Kerry because...(get this...) she's so "politically incorrect." ???!!! What planet are these people from?

Mrs. Heinz's speech at the Dems' Convention was so packed with hald-baked 1960s liberal pieties it was hard not to burst out laughing at how silly she sounded. I think one liberal commentator even said he wondered if she would start calling for bra burning protests.

I'm a bit more clear than Kerry where I stand, and why, aren't I? :) Poor Kerry. It must be awful trimming here there and everywhere. The lush for power can be a debilitating experience for the "un-centered."

"The Bible itself - I mean, everything talks about different layers of development," Kerry said.

"Before I formed you in the womb I knew you." -God

Kerry said he thought the "fertilization process" is when a human being "is first formed and created." However, Kerry added, "[w]ithin weeks, you look and see the development of it, but that's not a person yet,

Sounds like the old concept of "quickening." Is Kerry's scientific understanding really this far behind the times? If he really doesn't know what fetus' are, why is he so anxious to kill them?

I'm surprised that I have seen no Bush ads yet on Spanish language TV emphazing Kerry's bizarre abortion stance. My girlfried is from Venezuela and not really into politics. However, one day she said that she thinks she would support Kerry if she could vote. I merely pointed out that Kerry SUPPORTS abortion. She immediately changed her mind about Kerry. This info about Kerry needs to placed on Spanish language TV. Latins are stongly anti-abortion.

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.